Gilchrist gone on loan to Middlesex for the One Day Cup. Clearly don't want to play him as he's moving on at the end of the season. Disappointing as we could do with him playing
I've come to the conclusion that the reason they don't want Gilchrist playing is because they want to concentrate on the future. By that, I don't mean just the youngsters. We have three bowlers playing where we have to make up our mind whether to offer them new contracts or not - Klaassen is a known quantity but someone who has been injured in the last two seasons, Cohen has been out for two years and the only way he can demonstrate his fitness is by playing for the duration and Rizvi is a total unknown at this level. We know what the likes of Garrett and Quinn can do and Gilchrist is not the future.
We also have to take into account that with such a squad lacking depth we can't afford to have the likes of Crawley, DBD, Muyeye, Billings, Joe Denly and Stewart (now back) missing. That is the backbone of our batting and the experimentation with the bowling is a realisation that, without all of our top five, we are simply not going to be competitive regardless of what is publicly said about us trying to win it.
We've named a 14 man squad for tomorrow's game with Stewart back. Flintoff and Curtiss have been left out from the squad for the last game.
Beckenham doesn't have the character of Canterbury or the infrastructure to make it a proper county ground. What it does have is location. I'm no expert but, from the perspective of attracting sponsors, is Beckenham, with its links to London, more likely to do so than Canterbury? Do most of the other counties have their centre of operations in a major town/city?
I've always thought the Kent squad has been a bit unbalanced for a couple of years, with a vast number of bowlers to cover for the injured ones, but no batting depth at all. All teams lose players to the 100, but we don't have enough batsmen to cope, and have a yawning gap in the squad between the senior pros and the raw teenagers.
Losing DBD to injury is unfortunate, but Joe Denly sadly is now showing his age and retirement must surely be imminent.
Blast format change for next year , played in one block before the Crisp Tournament with 12 group games , 3 groups of 6.
Kent stay in the " Southern" group with Sussex, Surrey, Essex, Middlesex and Hampshire.
Absolute shambles from the ECB yet again.
I think this is sensible. Probably should have happened instead of the crisp bollocks. But having it in one block rather than fits and starts is a good thing. Means consistency of whonis available as overseas players (and probably access to better quality overseas) as well as England internationals. The current system is a mess.
Blast format change for next year , played in one block before the Crisp Tournament with 12 group games , 3 groups of 6.
Kent stay in the " Southern" group with Sussex, Surrey, Essex, Middlesex and Hampshire.
Absolute shambles from the ECB yet again.
I think this is sensible. Probably should have happened instead of the crisp bollocks. But having it in one block rather than fits and starts is a good thing. Means consistency of whonis available as overseas players (and probably access to better quality overseas) as well as England internationals. The current system is a mess.
And the current timetable destroys any momentum a team might have had.
For example Kent won their last 2 group games to progress, so the squad will have been buzzing, but by the time we play again in September, we'll effectively be starting again.
And now of course it is unlikely that Gilchrist will be included in Kent’s t20 side to play Lancashire in September. Unless Kent decide to pay for an overseas player Cohen, Garrett or Quinn will have to play in the quarter final.
It will affect revenue but of course counties are receiving more money from The Hundred windfall to help compensate. For the more cynically minded two less t20 games will also help free up the calendar to allow for The Hundred to be expanded in terms of both the number of teams and matches and allow it to take place over six weeks instead of four.
It will affect revenue but of course counties are receiving more money from The Hundred windfall to help compensate. For the more cynically minded two less t20 games will also help free up the calendar to allow for The Hundred to be expanded in terms of both the number of teams and matches and allow it to take place over six weeks instead of four.
Fantastic news. I mean who wants to see loads of runs when you can average 129 runs an innings as The Hundred has done this season from 18 innings? Imagine turning up to Blast games, week in week out, and seeing less than 260 runs in a game and with the vast majority of the time knowing that the side chasing will win - 7/9 this season with the margin of victory on the two occasions that the team batting first being just 8 and 10 runs respectively. You'd want your money back. The argument that you have 20 less balls in The Hundred is offset by the fact that a side has less balls to be all out. I haven't watched a single ball but I bet the Sky commentators aren't majoring on that!
Of course this is all true but as a county cricket supporter I keep having to remind myself The Hundred wasn’t designed for me. Presumably then I should not be worried that the product is losing millions or that the promise by the ECB that The Hundred would attract new fans to other formats of the game turned out to be false.
I can’t see why serious money is being invested into The Hundred unless there are significant changes on the horizon. Even other sports investors are intrigued to see how the new co-owners of the franchises plan to recoup their outlay.
Of course this is all true but as a county cricket supporter I keep having to remind myself The Hundred wasn’t designed for me. Presumably then I should not be worried that the product is losing millions or that the promise by the ECB that The Hundred would attract new fans to other formats of the game turned out to be false.
I can’t see why serious money is being invested into The Hundred unless there are significant changes on the horizon. Even other sports investors are intrigued to see how the new co-owners of the franchises plan to recoup their outlay.
That is the worrying part and why I believe that, eventually, we will see 8 Test hosting franchises with the other counties becoming minor entities. Even now, if you go on, for example, the Lancashire website there is information all about The Hundred with a direct link to the competition. There's also been the announcement that the Manchester Originals will now incorporate "Super Giants" in their name with the intention is for the side to carry the same colours as the Lucknow Super Giants as they are both majority owned by the same investors. Lancashire might retain their name for county competitions but the Blast will become consigned to the same status as the Metro and the CC reduced in terms of games to the bare minimum.
A few bob to appease those lesser counties now is not a long term solution for the sustainability for 18 counties on a level basis and when we see how money can and does create a pyramid system with the Premier League at the top in football (and the ongoing threat of a super European League), it is not difficult to envisage that situation happening in cricket. If they can make The Hundred a global product, even more so if Indian players are permitted to play in it then that opens a whole new market and if the same centres of influence run the ICCI as they do the IPL why shouldn't that happen?
How many players do we sign from another county whose career was on an obviously upward curve? A Cox or a Robinson, for example, who went the other way? Contracts for non pathway players in the last couple of years have been offered to Garrett, Benjamin, Cohen, Bhuiyan, Flintoff and Parkinson. How many of those have really improved the side? A previous signing such as Evison might fulfill his talent, Compton has been a very good acquisition and Finch a good one but they were out of the pro game when we took them on. That is the pool we are fishing in.
Of course this is all true but as a county cricket supporter I keep having to remind myself The Hundred wasn’t designed for me. Presumably then I should not be worried that the product is losing millions or that the promise by the ECB that The Hundred would attract new fans to other formats of the game turned out to be false.
I can’t see why serious money is being invested into The Hundred unless there are significant changes on the horizon. Even other sports investors are intrigued to see how the new co-owners of the franchises plan to recoup their outlay.
That is the worrying part and why I believe that, eventually, we will see 8 Test hosting franchises with the other counties becoming minor entities. Even now, if you go on, for example, the Lancashire website there is information all about The Hundred with a direct link to the competition. There's also been the announcement that the Manchester Originals will now incorporate "Super Giants" in their name with the intention is for the side to carry the same colours as the Lucknow Super Giants as they are both majority owned by the same investors. Lancashire might retain their name for county competitions but the Blast will become consigned to the same status as the Metro and the CC reduced in terms of games to the bare minimum.
A few bob to appease those lesser counties now is not a long term solution for the sustainability for 18 counties on a level basis and when we see how money can and does create a pyramid system with the Premier League at the top in football (and the ongoing threat of a super European League), it is not difficult to envisage that situation happening in cricket. If they can make The Hundred a global product, even more so if Indian players are permitted to play in it then that opens a whole new market and if the same centres of influence run the ICCI as they do the IPL why shouldn't that happen?
How many players do we sign from another county whose career was on an obviously upward curve? A Cox or a Robinson, for example, who went the other way? Contracts for non pathway players in the last couple of years have been offered to Garrett, Benjamin, Cohen, Bhuiyan, Flintoff and Parkinson. How many of those have really improved the side? A previous signing such as Evison might fulfill his talent, Compton has been a very good acquisition and Finch a good one but they were out of the pro game when we took them on. That is the pool we are fishing in.
As the song goes "it's all about the money".
I agree about the money , but has it not gone a bit downhill since Downton has left ?
Of course this is all true but as a county cricket supporter I keep having to remind myself The Hundred wasn’t designed for me. Presumably then I should not be worried that the product is losing millions or that the promise by the ECB that The Hundred would attract new fans to other formats of the game turned out to be false.
I can’t see why serious money is being invested into The Hundred unless there are significant changes on the horizon. Even other sports investors are intrigued to see how the new co-owners of the franchises plan to recoup their outlay.
That is the worrying part and why I believe that, eventually, we will see 8 Test hosting franchises with the other counties becoming minor entities. Even now, if you go on, for example, the Lancashire website there is information all about The Hundred with a direct link to the competition. There's also been the announcement that the Manchester Originals will now incorporate "Super Giants" in their name with the intention is for the side to carry the same colours as the Lucknow Super Giants as they are both majority owned by the same investors. Lancashire might retain their name for county competitions but the Blast will become consigned to the same status as the Metro and the CC reduced in terms of games to the bare minimum.
A few bob to appease those lesser counties now is not a long term solution for the sustainability for 18 counties on a level basis and when we see how money can and does create a pyramid system with the Premier League at the top in football (and the ongoing threat of a super European League), it is not difficult to envisage that situation happening in cricket. If they can make The Hundred a global product, even more so if Indian players are permitted to play in it then that opens a whole new market and if the same centres of influence run the ICCI as they do the IPL why shouldn't that happen?
How many players do we sign from another county whose career was on an obviously upward curve? A Cox or a Robinson, for example, who went the other way? Contracts for non pathway players in the last couple of years have been offered to Garrett, Benjamin, Cohen, Bhuiyan, Flintoff and Parkinson. How many of those have really improved the side? A previous signing such as Evison might fulfill his talent, Compton has been a very good acquisition and Finch a good one but they were out of the pro game when we took them on. That is the pool we are fishing in.
As the song goes "it's all about the money".
I agree about the money , but has it not gone a bit downhill since Downton has left ?
I think Downton jumped when he saw the writing was on the wall. No obvious young players coming through, an inability to sign players from other counties that would immediately improve the side, the lack of financial strength to attract top overseas players, the loss of probably one of if, not our best all-rounder of all time, Darren Stevens, Billings edging towards white ball commitments and predators circling for the few worth something that might be persuaded to go. Things were really only going in one direction.
An indication of how far we have fallen is that I can honestly say that I do not believe one player from our current squad would get into this side of the 1970s at the height of when I first started following us. Not even Billings or Crawley if we are talking about red ball.
Luckhurst - England Denness - England Cowdrey - England Asif - Pakistan Ealham (A) Shepherd - West Indies Knott - England Woolmer - England Johnson Julien - West Indies Underwood - England
It also says it all that all bar Bernard Julien either came through the Kent system or settled in Kent post career with the vast majority of the side being one county players. Times really have changed.
I do understand a lot of the dislike for The Hundred but would like to say that it has been great for the women's game, particularly because it's been tied to men's matches. At least one of their matcnes had 15,000 in the other day which just wouldn't happen. Maybe there could have been ways to do similar with the blast but it has undoubtedly been a positive
I do understand a lot of the dislike for The Hundred but would like to say that it has been great for the women's game, particularly because it's been tied to men's matches. At least one of their matcnes had 15,000 in the other day which just wouldn't happen. Maybe there could have been ways to do similar with the blast but it has undoubtedly been a positive
They could have done that with the Blast but the ECB did not want to enhance the benefit of that in any shape or form. It's impossible to do so now given that the same ECB has designated the county that has produced more England players than any other Tier 2 status and as a result Kent have lost a dozen players, mostly to Surrey.
The CEO at the ECB responsible for promoting The Hundred, Tom Harrison, was paid £1.13m in 2022 which is more than double the amount Kent are about to receive.
I do understand a lot of the dislike for The Hundred but would like to say that it has been great for the women's game, particularly because it's been tied to men's matches. At least one of their matcnes had 15,000 in the other day which just wouldn't happen. Maybe there could have been ways to do similar with the blast but it has undoubtedly been a positive
Am sure I read they are looking to have stand alone women’s games soon in the hundred. Be interesting to see how that goes
I do understand a lot of the dislike for The Hundred but would like to say that it has been great for the women's game, particularly because it's been tied to men's matches. At least one of their matcnes had 15,000 in the other day which just wouldn't happen. Maybe there could have been ways to do similar with the blast but it has undoubtedly been a positive
They could have done that with the Blast but the ECB did not want to enhance the benefit of that in any shape or form. It's impossible to do so now given that the same ECB has designated the county that has produced more England players than any other Tier 2 status and as a result Kent have lost a dozen players, mostly to Surrey.
The CEO at the ECB responsible for promoting The Hundred, Tom Harrison, was paid £1.13m in 2022 which is more than double the amount Kent are about to receive.
This. I agree its done a lot for the women's game but it only looks so stark compared to the lack of funding the women's game got before. The ECB basically defunded the women's game for a while to the point where surrey stepped in and negotiated the kia super league to try and keep a lot of it going and keep a small number of women's players full time professional. Everything the blundred has done for the women's game could have been done with the Blast if the desire was there
Of course this is all true but as a county cricket supporter I keep having to remind myself The Hundred wasn’t designed for me. Presumably then I should not be worried that the product is losing millions or that the promise by the ECB that The Hundred would attract new fans to other formats of the game turned out to be false.
I can’t see why serious money is being invested into The Hundred unless there are significant changes on the horizon. Even other sports investors are intrigued to see how the new co-owners of the franchises plan to recoup their outlay.
That is the worrying part and why I believe that, eventually, we will see 8 Test hosting franchises with the other counties becoming minor entities. Even now, if you go on, for example, the Lancashire website there is information all about The Hundred with a direct link to the competition. There's also been the announcement that the Manchester Originals will now incorporate "Super Giants" in their name with the intention is for the side to carry the same colours as the Lucknow Super Giants as they are both majority owned by the same investors. Lancashire might retain their name for county competitions but the Blast will become consigned to the same status as the Metro and the CC reduced in terms of games to the bare minimum.
A few bob to appease those lesser counties now is not a long term solution for the sustainability for 18 counties on a level basis and when we see how money can and does create a pyramid system with the Premier League at the top in football (and the ongoing threat of a super European League), it is not difficult to envisage that situation happening in cricket. If they can make The Hundred a global product, even more so if Indian players are permitted to play in it then that opens a whole new market and if the same centres of influence run the ICCI as they do the IPL why shouldn't that happen?
How many players do we sign from another county whose career was on an obviously upward curve? A Cox or a Robinson, for example, who went the other way? Contracts for non pathway players in the last couple of years have been offered to Garrett, Benjamin, Cohen, Bhuiyan, Flintoff and Parkinson. How many of those have really improved the side? A previous signing such as Evison might fulfill his talent, Compton has been a very good acquisition and Finch a good one but they were out of the pro game when we took them on. That is the pool we are fishing in.
Hypothetical question - how would we feel about Kent being sold to outside investors like Hampshire has been , if it guaranteed financial stability and the ability to invest in the team ?
Hypothetical question - how would we feel about Kent being sold to outside investors like Hampshire has been , if it guaranteed financial stability and the ability to invest in the team ?
We have to move with the times if we want to compete. There would be a tightrope to be walked in that respect, specifically in terms of not totally losing our identity but if it's a choice between a thriving First Class county and a minor one then I would opt for the former. In essence, the cricket we are currently producing is not far divorced from that at the upper end of the Kent League - and the latter is free to view.
The Kent County Cricket Board would no doubt welcome any investment with open arms but in reality I can’t see it happening - overseas buyers have only been interested in counties hosting The Hundred franchises. In time the eight or if expanded ten (mainly Test hosting) counties, which stage The Hundred, will be morphed into the franchises and the remaining counties will be left even further behind.
The precarious financial position of the non-Test playing counties means they keep voting for the reforms even though they know that in the long term it means they are likely to become a minor entity or an affiliated feeder county to one of the franchises.
Kent have suggested a 100 franchise based at an expanded Beckenham.
Something has to happen, as the county is drifting, and to me Canterbury is part of the problem. Not near to the most populous parts of the historic Kent area, and the ground itself is very old fashioned without being especially quaint.
Compton is injured so Dawkins has come in. Has to be close to our youngest ever opening partnership given Jaydn is 19 and Dawkins 18. Stewart in for Rizvi.
Warwickshire have won the toss and elected to bat.
Kent have suggested a 100 franchise based at an expanded Beckenham.
Something has to happen, as the county is drifting, and to me Canterbury is part of the problem. Not near to the most populous parts of the historic Kent area, and the ground itself is very old fashioned without being especially quaint.
The ECB will want to protect their Test hosting link to those franchises and might still limit it to eight sides. Equally, there will be the argument that three London based teams out of potentially ten, with some areas miles from one, Durham would be next in line and one suspects that we would lose out to someone like Somerset as the odd team out.
Kent have suggested a 100 franchise based at an expanded Beckenham.
Something has to happen, as the county is drifting, and to me Canterbury is part of the problem. Not near to the most populous parts of the historic Kent area, and the ground itself is very old fashioned without being especially quaint.
With the cathedral in the background, Lime tree, St Lawrence is the definition of quaint
With two franchises already London based, a third would be out of the question. And the Beckenham Ground is totally unsuitable. I would be amazed if the Kent Management Board gave this serious consideration.
Comments
At least with Stewart back from injury there are a few more bowling options for tomorrow’s game.
We also have to take into account that with such a squad lacking depth we can't afford to have the likes of Crawley, DBD, Muyeye, Billings, Joe Denly and Stewart (now back) missing. That is the backbone of our batting and the experimentation with the bowling is a realisation that, without all of our top five, we are simply not going to be competitive regardless of what is publicly said about us trying to win it.
We've named a 14 man squad for tomorrow's game with Stewart back. Flintoff and Curtiss have been left out from the squad for the last game.
Losing DBD to injury is unfortunate, but Joe Denly sadly is now showing his age and retirement must surely be imminent.
For example Kent won their last 2 group games to progress, so the squad will have been buzzing, but by the time we play again in September, we'll effectively be starting again.
Fantastic news. I mean who wants to see loads of runs when you can average 129 runs an innings as The Hundred has done this season from 18 innings? Imagine turning up to Blast games, week in week out, and seeing less than 260 runs in a game and with the vast majority of the time knowing that the side chasing will win - 7/9 this season with the margin of victory on the two occasions that the team batting first being just 8 and 10 runs respectively. You'd want your money back. The argument that you have 20 less balls in The Hundred is offset by the fact that a side has less balls to be all out. I haven't watched a single ball but I bet the Sky commentators aren't majoring on that!
A few bob to appease those lesser counties now is not a long term solution for the sustainability for 18 counties on a level basis and when we see how money can and does create a pyramid system with the Premier League at the top in football (and the ongoing threat of a super European League), it is not difficult to envisage that situation happening in cricket. If they can make The Hundred a global product, even more so if Indian players are permitted to play in it then that opens a whole new market and if the same centres of influence run the ICCI as they do the IPL why shouldn't that happen?
How many players do we sign from another county whose career was on an obviously upward curve? A Cox or a Robinson, for example, who went the other way? Contracts for non pathway players in the last couple of years have been offered to Garrett, Benjamin, Cohen, Bhuiyan, Flintoff and Parkinson. How many of those have really improved the side? A previous signing such as Evison might fulfill his talent, Compton has been a very good acquisition and Finch a good one but they were out of the pro game when we took them on. That is the pool we are fishing in.
As the song goes "it's all about the money".
An indication of how far we have fallen is that I can honestly say that I do not believe one player from our current squad would get into this side of the 1970s at the height of when I first started following us. Not even Billings or Crawley if we are talking about red ball.
Luckhurst - England
Denness - England
Cowdrey - England
Asif - Pakistan
Ealham (A)
Shepherd - West Indies
Knott - England
Woolmer - England
Johnson
Julien - West Indies
Underwood - England
It also says it all that all bar Bernard Julien either came through the Kent system or settled in Kent post career with the vast majority of the side being one county players. Times really have changed.
The CEO at the ECB responsible for promoting The Hundred, Tom Harrison, was paid £1.13m in 2022 which is more than double the amount Kent are about to receive.
Something has to happen, as the county is drifting, and to me Canterbury is part of the problem. Not near to the most populous parts of the historic Kent area, and the ground itself is very old fashioned without being especially quaint.
Warwickshire have won the toss and elected to bat.